EU adopts innovative legislation on invasive species: a step
towards a global response to biological invasions?
Piero Genovesi • Carles Carboneras •Montserrat Vila` • Paul Walton
Abstract Europe has adopted innovative legislation on invasive species that could
signal a step-change in the global response to biological invasion threats. The
discussion that took place within EU institutions—EU Parliament, European
Commission, and the Member States—permitted significant improvement on the initial
proposal presented by the European Commission, including removing the initial 50
species cap, explicitly allowing national authorities to take stringent measures on
invasive species of national concern, and encouraging coordinated approaches to
invasive species in boundary areas. An independent “Scientific Forum’’ to inform
implementation has been introduced, and the EU Regulation will permit only limited
licensing for specific activities using invasive alien species. However, the real strength
of the legislation will largely depend on the decisions of a committee of representatives
of the Member States, with the risk that the real enforcement will be limited by political
and economic, rather than scientific, considerations. In this regard it will be crucial to
set up a framework of roles and responsibilities among the different bodies that ensure
transparent and objective decision processes.
Also, it will be essential that adequate resources be secured for implementing the
provisions of the legislation. Finally, the regulatory approach introduced by the
Regulation will have only a limited impact unless European citizens raise their
awareness of this threat and adopt more responsible behaviours
Keywords Polluter-pays ; Ecological impacts; Pathways of introduction; Invasive alien
species; Policy ;Prevention ; Risk assessment
The European Union has adopted legislation on a primary global driver of biodiversity
loss. Ten years after adoption of a non-binding European Strategy on Invasive Alien
Species (Genovesi and Shine 2004), and 6 years after its first formal commitment to
adopt a policy on the issue (EC 2008), the EU has agreed a legislative text that was
adopted on April 16th 2014 by the European Parliament with a large majority (606–36,
with 4 abstentions) and by the European Council in September 29th of the same year
without substantial changes. The text, published in the Official Journal of the European
Union on November 4th, issue L 317/35, is in the form of an EU Regulation (Regulation
1143/2014), and becomes immediately enforceable law in all Member States on 1st
January 2015. Unlike EU Directives, EU Regulations become national law without
having to be transposed.
The initial draft of this legislation, published in September 2013, drew a good deal of
criticism and underwent several changes (Carboneras et al. 2013). Significant among
these are: (1) In the adopted regulation the proposed numerical cap of 50 ‘Invasive
Alien Species ofUnion Concern’ has been removed. (2) An independent ‘‘Scientific
Forum’’ has been established to provide advice on the scientific aspects related to
applying this Regulation, in particular ‘‘..as regards establishing and updating the Union
list, risk assessments, emergency measures and rapid eradication measures.’’ (3)
Despite strong pressure from certain industries–notably mink farming–for sweeping
derogations to serve economic interests, the new legislation permits limited licensing
for specific activities using invasive alien species only in exceptional cases and subject
to authorisation by the European Commission. The Regulation, which is the first large
EU piece of legislation on biodiversity in more than 20 years, reflects much of the
guidance and advice provided by the invasion science community, and it follows the
hierarchical approach adopted by the Convention on Biological Diversity (with decision
VI/23): a priority emphasis on prevention, early warning and rapid response as the best
option when prevention fails, eradication as the best management alternative, and
long-term control measures as a fall-back option, a strategy that is considered as the
most effective way to address this problem by invasion biologists (Simberloff et al.
2013). The backbone of the legislation is the list of harmful invasive species (a ‘black
list’ approach), namely ‘‘Invasive Alien Species of Union Concern,’’ selected only
among species that are alien to the EU and that are identified as invasive through a
detailed risk assessment. For the species included in this list there will be automatic
stringent provisions for preventing introduction into the EU, including a ban of import,
trade, possession, breeding, transport, use, and release into the environment. In case
of detection of an ‘‘Invasive Alien Species of Union Concern,’’ European States will be
obliged to immediately attempt eradication whenever feasible. Art. 17 of the Regulation
specifies that eradication methods should be effective and avoid possible undesired
effects and, for animals of any taxonomic groups, should avoid pain or suffering if
possible, thus providing clear guidance on how to balance effectiveness and animal
welfare concerns. Member States are also required to set up, within 18 months of
adoption of the Regulation, a surveillance system to speed up action in case an
Invasive Alien Species of Union Concern is detected. A key innovation in the new
legislation is an obligation of European states to assess the key pathways of
introduction of listed species and to develop action plans to prevent new unwanted
arrivals by strengthening controls of both intentional and accidental movement of
organisms. This is in line with suggestions from the scientific community (Hulme et al.
2008) and the principles of ‘‘Aichi’’ Target 9 of the Strategic Plan 2020 of the
Convention on Biological Diversity that call for prioritizing pathways of introduction of
invasive species and focusing prevention efforts on these means. The EC Biodiversity
Strategy to 2020 also calls for identifying, prioritizing and managing pathways to
prevent introduction and establishment of new IAS (EC 2011).
Although the Union list is the main focus of the legislation, the provisions go well
beyond a single list. In fact, the Regulation also mandates addressing species of
national or regional concern, with the possibility that Member States address these
species by enforcing in their territory measures similar to those applied at the EU scale
for the Union list. The text also encourages coordinated action among countries
sharing invasive species. This approach is also meant to address invasive species that
are native to part of the EU and that are therefore excluded from the provisions of the
Union list (art. 11.3). The establishment of a Scientific Forum reflects the importance of
ensuring the support of an advisory body to decision-making (Hulme et al. 2009),
although the role of this body is not clear yet, and its rules of procedure (possibly
including a formal mechanism for the forum to provide inputs to the Committee) must
be established by the Commission. On the negative side, provisions on ballast water
have been removed, and the final decision on which invasive species will become part
of the Union list–the only ones targeted with stringent measures—are at risk of being
driven by policy more than by science. Even though the 50 species cap has been
removed, this list of species of EU concern will likely be rather short, given that species
listed need to be approved by the Committee of representatives of the Member States
by qualified majority. A preliminary analysis of the candidate risk analysis to be applied
to decide on the list has been undertaken by a consortium of experts under a contract
issued by the European Commission. The assessment (Roy et al. 2014) has identified
the minimum criteria of the risk assessment protocols and also the invasive species for
which a risk assessment is already available in Europe. These criteria of the risk
assessment protocols have been based on a review of fourteen existing risk
assessment protocols, such as those developed by the European and Mediterranean
Plant Protection Organisation or the Great Britain Non-Native Species Risk
Assessment, integrated with additional information for example on their response to
climate change, their impact on ecosystem services, and also on their potential
socioeconomic benefits.Although none of the existing risk assessment protocols fully
meet the set of minimum standards, a draft EU list of 50 ‘‘Invasive Alien Species of
Union Concern’’ was constructed taking into account the risk assessment methods
considered to be substantially compliant’’ with the criteria for listing. The
speciesincluded on this provisional list are all alien to Europe and have a high to
medium impact on biodiversity and/or human health and the economy. In total, there
are 25plant species, 12 vertebrate species, and 13 invertebrate species. Thirty
additional species have risk assessments currently under development, or just
performed, and could be included in the list of proposed ‘‘IAS of EU concern’’ when
their assessment is complete and validated. The report recommends prioritizing
another 46 species for which a sufficiently compliant risk assessment is not currently
available. However, not all those species will be included in the final EU list of invasive
alien species, because the proposal by the European Commission can include only
species whose risk assessments have been validated, and it must then be submitted
for final approval by the Committee.
Since the most stringent provisions of the Regulation will apply only to species on the
Union list, the process to adopt the list, and to update it in the future becomes
particularly relevant. The statements of the European Member States during the
meeting of the European Council that led to the final adoption of the Regulation
(available online at: ttp://register.consilium.europa.eu/doc/srv?l=EN&f=ST%2013266%
202014%20ADD%201) indicate the nature of argumentsthat may arise in the decision
process to produce the EU list. In the discussion, Hungary highlighted that black locust
(Robinia pseudoacacia)—which has a significant value in the honey production of that
country–should not be included in the Union list and should be managed under national
legislation. Denmark and Finland, major producers of mink fur—based on the
assurances given during the negotiations of the Regulation—expressed their
confidence that the American Mink (Neovison vison) will not be included in the list.
Furthermore, the abstention of Germany has been linked to pressures from the
renewable industry in that country, particularly interested in the development of new
biofuels. An additional weak link in the framework set up by the Regulation is resource
availability. No specific financing mechanisms have been set, and this has been
highlighted as a key gap by European Member States during the discussions that led to
the approval of the text. The Regulation includes the possibility that Member States
recover the costs of restoration through the polluter-pays principle (Beninde et al.
2014), but the enforcement of this approach appears very challenging, not least
because—differently from pollution—the effects of invasions might not be possible to
reverse and can grow over time. In some cases the initial release of few individuals can
in the long term cause disastrous effects, as in the case of the American Grey squirrel
(Sciurus carolinensis) in Italy or of Caulerpa taxifolia in Monaco (Brunel et al. 2013).
The European Union is a global hub for the movement of people and goods, with the
promotion of unhindered trade as its core political function and 28 diverse democracies
as its constituency. Its bulk forms part of the planet’s largest land-mass, with extended
borders crossing diverse biogeographical regions and containing a concentration of the
world’s busiest airports, trunk-routes, shipping lanes, and harbours. As such, the EU is
perhaps the single most challenging place on earth to try to regulate the human
movement and release of invasive species. But the transport and establishment rates
of invasive species in Europe continue to rise (Butchart et al. 2010), as do their impacts
on biodiversity. We now have, in this new piece of legislation, a long overdue EU policy
response, based on science and sound conservation principles. However, it must be
stressed that even if fully implemented (which would significantly depend on the
commitment of individual Member States and on the availability of adequate resources)
this framework cannot alone wholly address the severe and
rapidly growing threat of biological invasions. Globally, an increasing number of
invasive species legislative instruments, adopted at various scales, has thus far failed
to reduce the overall rate of invasions (McGeoch et al. 2010). The European instrument
falls far short of biosecurity policies of Australia and New Zealand, widely
acknowledged as the most advanced and which have significantly reduced the rate of
arrival of invasive species in those territories. Australia has a ‘white listing’ approach to
imports, for example, prohibiting the entry of any organism into Australia, unless it is on
an authorised list (Beale et al. 2008). The Australian biosecurity framework, based on a
collective effort from the agriculture, forestry, fisheries, and environment sectors, has
enjoyed a total budget of $1.6 billion since 2009, and $524.2 m of new funding for the
2012–2013 period. This ambitious biosecurity approach has successfully kept the
country free of several highly invasive species such as the Varroa mite—a parasite of
bees—and this has saved Australian plant industries alone $21.3–50.3 million/year
over 30 years.
Nevertheless, a framework based on a limited ‘black list’, as in the EU legislation,
represents hugely significant progress. The Japan Invasive Alien Species Act,
approved in 2004 and based on a list of about 100 invasive species for which there are
restrictions on importation, possession, rearing, and release, has managed to decrease
the number of imported invasive species by 47.3 % for mammals, 70.8 % for birds,
38 % for reptiles, 84.2 % or amphibians, and 11.5 % for ornamental fish (Goka 2010). If
we are to avoid bequeathing to future Europeans both a degraded environment and an
immense financial bill, we must start to achieve similar results. The new legislation is a
major step in the right direction, but it will need further political commitment to see it
through to legislation, and a sea change in the attitude of the European society, as we
have seen in New Zealand and Australia, to support vigorous implementation of the
provisions included and to adopt more responsible behaviour with regard to the
movement and management of organisms.
One key element in this direction is to raise the awareness of European citizens toward
this threat and to achieve public engagement. Public perception of the threats posed by
invasive species is notably diverse across the EU. Sixty-six percent of 5101 answers to
an online public consultation held by the European Commission in 2012 came from
citizens, with a further 32 % from organisations. The responses were geographically
concentrated in 6 Member States (notably, UK, Spain, Belgium, Germany and the
Netherlands), which accounted for 82 % of the responses, the remainder coming from
the other 21Member States (EC 2013). Thus, the EU institutions and national
governments still have a major task to inform European society of the challenges
ahead and to engage them in preventing new invasions, particularly in countries where
public awareness seems to be alarmingly low.
The involvement of wider society is crucial to develop more responsible behaviours to
enable the regulatory approach introduced by the Regulation. Oneexample in this
direction is the various codes of conduct developed by the Bern Convention of the
Council of Europe in partnership with the IUCN SSC Invasive Species Specialist Group
and with key interested groups. These include a Code of Conduct on Horticulture and
Invasive Species (Heywood and Brunel 2011), one on Botanical Gardens and Invasive
Species (Heywood and Sharrock 2013), one onHunting and Invasive Species (Monaco
et al. 2013; developed with the European Federation of Associations for Hunting), and
one on Zoological Gardens, and Aquaria and Invasive Alien Species (Scalera et al.
2012; developed with the European Association of Zoos and Aquaria). The role of key
industries in the European economic network to adopt more responsible behaviour with
respect to the introduction and use of invasive species is indeed crucially important,
and the European Union should encourage such voluntary approaches to this issue.
This is a uniquely human problem, and we must all cooperate to solve it
Acknowledgments Financial support to MV was provided by the Spanish Ministerio de
Economı´a y Competitividad, through the Severo Ochoa Program for Centres of
Excellence in R+D+I (SEV-2012-0262).
References
Beale RJ, Fairbrother J, Inglis A, Trebeck D (2008) One biosecurity:
a working partnership. The independent review of
Australia’s quarantine and biosecurity arrangements:
report to the Australian Government. Canberra
Beninde J, Fischer M, Hochkirch A, Zink A (2014) Ambitious
advances of the European Union in the legislation of
invasive alien species. Conserv Lett 49:1–17
Brunel S, Ferna´ndez-Galiano E, Genovesi P, Heywood VH,
Kueffer C, Richardson DM(2013) Invasive alien species: a
growing but neglected threat? In: Late lessons from early
warn. Science, precaution, innovation. Lessons preventing
harm. European Environmental Agency EEA, Copenhagen,
pp 518–540
Butchart SHM, Walpole M, Collen B, van Strien A, Scharlemann
JPW, Almond REA, Baillie JEM, Bomhard B,
Brown C, Bruno J, Carpenter KE, Carr GM, Chanson J,
Chenery AM, Csirke J, Davidson NC, Dentener F, Foster
M, Galli A, Galloway JN, Genovesi P, Gregory RD,
Hockings M, Kapos V, Lamarque J-F, Leverington F, Loh
J, McGeoch MA, McRae L, Minasyan A, Morcillo MH,
Oldfield TEE, Pauly D, Quader S, Revenga C, Sauer JR,
Skolnik B, Spear D, Stanwell-Smith D, Stuart SN, Symes
A, Tierney M, Tyrrell TD, Vie´ J-C, Watson R (2010)
Global biodiversity: indicators of recent declines. Science
328:1164–1168
Carboneras C, Walton P, Vila` M (2013) Capping progress on
invasive species? Science 342:930–931
EC (2008) Communication from the Commission–Halting the
loss of biodiversity by 2010–and beyond–Sustaining ecosystem
services for human well-being COM/2006/216
EC (2011) Our life insurance, our natural capital: an EU biodiversity
strategy to 2020. COM(2011) 244 final
EC (2013) Impact assessment accompanying the document
‘‘Proposal for a Council and European Parliament Regulation
on the prevention and management of the introduction
and spread of invasive alien species’’. SWD(2013) 321
final
Genovesi P, Shine C (2004) European strategy on invasive alien
species. Nat Environ 161:1–73
Goka K (2010) Biosecurity measures to prevent the incursion of
invasive alien species in Japan and to mitigate their impact
The Invasive Alien Species Act in Japan. Rev Sci Tech Off
Int Epiz 29:299–310
Heywood VH, Brunel S (2011) European code of conduct on
horticulture and invasive alien species. Council of Europe Strasbourg, Nature and
Environment 162. Council of
Europe Publishing, F-67075
Heywood VH, Sharrock S (2013) European code of conduct for
botanic gardens on invasive alien species. Council of
Europe, Strasbourg, Botanic Gardens Conservation International,
Richmond. Council of Europe Publishing,
F-67075
Hulme PE, Bacher S, Kenis M, Klotz S, Minchin D, Nentwig W,
Olenin S, Panov V, Pergl J, Roques A, Sol D, Solarz W,
Vila` M (2008) Grasping at the routes of biological invasions:
a framework for integrating pathways into policy.
J Appl Ecol 45:403–414
Hulme PE, Pysek P, Nentwig W, Vila` M (2009) Will threat of
biological invasions unite the European Union? Science
324:40–41
McGeoch MA, Butchart SHM, Spear D, Marais E, Kleynhans
EJ, Symes A, Chanson J, Hoffmann M (2010) Global
indicators of biological invasion: species numbers, biodiversity
impact and policy responses. Divers Distrib
16:95–108
Monaco A, Genovesi P, Middleton A (2013) Code of conduct
on hunting and IAS. T-PVS/Inf (2013) 20. https://wcd.
coe.int/com.instranet.InstraServlet?command=com.instranet.
CmdBlobGet&InstranetImage=2398195&SecMode=1&
DocId=2021112&Usage=2
Roy H, Schonrogge K, Dean H, Peyton J, Branquart E,
Vanderhoeven S, Copp G, Stebbing P, Kenis M, Rabitsch
W, Essl F, Schindler S, Brunel S, Kettunen M, Mazza L,
Nieto A, Kemp J, Genovesi P, Scalera R, Stewart A (2014)
Invasive alien species: framework for the identification of
invasive alien species of EU concern. Report to the EC,
project ENV.B.2/ETU/2013/0026. http://ec.europa.eu/
environment/nature/invasivealien/docs/Final%20report_
12092014.pdf
Scalera R, Genovesi P, de Man D, Klausen B, Dickie L (2012)
European code of conduct on zoological gardens and aquaria
and invasive alien species. T-PVS/Inf (2011) 26 revised.
https://wcd.coe.int/com.instranet.InstraServlet?command=
com.instranet.CmdBlobGet&InstranetImage=2176840&
SecMode=1&DocId=1943806&Usage=2
Simberloff D, Martin JL, Genovesi P, Maris V, Wardle D,
Aronson J, Courchamp F, Galil B, Garcı´a-Berthou E,
Pascal M, Pysˇek P, Sousa R, Tabacchi E, Vila` M (2013)
Impacts of biological invasions: what’s what and the way
forward. Trends Ecol Evol 28:58–66